Why have you put good philosophers up against random B-rank contemporary philosophers/theologians? I mean, Kant v Hume, yes, or Nietzsche v Aquinas, but Hume v Craig? Why? It simply wouldn't be that interesting...

Now, Singer v Oderberg would be good, or Epicurus v Cicero.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.